How can god not exist?

Greetings,
I have always had trouble understanding how people can say god doesn't exist. Many people believe in god which means if nowhere else, it exists at least in their minds. If you claim that they don't exist because they are only in someone's mind, then you should also say that concepts, thoughts, and emotions don't exist. Of course you could in such a case also say that the tooth ferry exists since it is in someone's mind and the problem that arrises is how to tell if something is more "real" than another. One way could be to look at whether its made up of matter or not, but this of course will not include the essence of most thoughts, concepts, and emotions. Maybe in the future science can look at the electrical signals or whatever and tell exactly what the person is thinking but this cannot be done today and so if man did indeed create god, we see contemporary science would be inadequate at any such analysis anwyay. Besides the possibility, this will probably never happen anyway because the nature of quantum physics is such that particles don't exist, but show a tendency to exist. It is all a complex interconnected probability web and you can only look at a small piece of matter (such as an electron) by watching the effects on that which is around it. You can't take a picture of an electron. In this sense matter doesn't even exist as "matter"; just some interactions and relationships which give rise to the illusory existence of matter.

If we look at it from angle of effect then we can see that the concept of god has led many people to do many things and has very greatly affected people's actions. If something can make somepeople, which you consider real do something, how can it really "not exist"?

 

Hello,

I'll get right into my response:

Children run downstairs in the middle of the night to get presents from an entity that most people agree don't exist. Committing an act in the name of something isn't evidence in support of its existence.

Also, you already touched on the Tooth Fairy analogy. The difference between the Tooth Fairy and, arbitrarily, happiness, is that happiness, in a sense, is indeed matter and energy. Cocktails of chemicals and electric signals coupled with Pavlovian learning are what happiness is made from.

So, to answer your question, I (don't speak on behalf of all atheists, firstly) disbelieve in God because I haven't heard of any compelling evidence to the contrary. The only evidence I ever hear is anecdotal experiences that can't be reproduced, or lines of reasoning that are reducible to "My, this phenomenon is amazingly impressive, so God must exist and have done it," which I chalk up to a lack of imagination on their part.

Of course, you didn't say whether you were talking about the Deists' god, or the organized religions' gods. I also find the concepts of "faith," "supernatural," "other planes of existence," etc. etc. etc. to be very suspect and nonsensical.

So to put it bluntly, I'm an atheist because I believe it's true, and somewhere along the line I picked up the line of reasoning that I should believe what's true, regardless of what I wish was true.

I hope I was helpful. Did I clear anything up?

 

Most people think the sun orbits the earth -- truth is not a democracy.

 

You are not reading my argument but just refuting the traditional line of theist argument. I will try to explain very concisely. Please tell me where you don't like the argument.

1) People have created gods.
2) Gods are in people's minds.
3) Gods exists in people's minds.

Therefore gods exists... Why does their existence imply that they are in some far away place in the skies? If you are admitting that gods exist in people's minds, you are still admitting that gods exist.

I can predict your response but will wait for it to reply so that my post doesn't get too confusing.

"Most people think the sun orbits the earth -- truth is not a democracy."

In quantum physics the sun and the earth both exist and don't exist. When taking the not-existing aspect the earth does not orbit the sun. Yet you are willing to accept that the earth orbits the sun as a definitive comment. You probably say its 9:31 when it may be 9:31:54:32:25:42, etc... Why? Because the truth can only be approximated so 9:31 is a practical and useful answer. You have to be willing to accept different levels of approximations and people's thoughts are one such level of conventional reality.

 

Your interpretation of quantum physics should be scolded. Things certainly do not both exist and not exist at the same time. If you're referring to Schrodinger's Cat, you've missed the point of the hypothetical.

There is a gaping difference between the words 'imagined' and 'created'. If imagining something renders it "real," the word "real" has no meaning whatsoever. I can sit here and imagine trees that grow money all day--it won't make me rich. By saying Concept A exists just because you can think about it, you're simply trying to define Concept A into existence.

 

think of the greeks cause i have typed the same thing so many times i've forgoten most of it.

 

"Your interpretation of quantum physics should be scolded. Things certainly do not both exist and not exist at the same time. If you're referring to Schrodinger's Cat, you've missed the point of the hypothetical."

If you wish to confront my points, please confront my points as they are presented and not with your own additions. I never said at the same time, my dear. Besides, its not central to the argument.

"There is a gaping difference between the words 'imagined' and 'created'. If imagining something renders it "real," the word "real" has no meaning whatsoever."

That is in fact the point. The ultimate reality is emptiness. Conventionally everything concieved is real to a degree or another. This degree can only be

"I can sit here and imagine trees that grow money all day--it won't make me rich. By saying Concept A exists just because you can think about it, you're simply trying to define Concept A into existence."

Why not? It has been imagined. It exists in someone's mind. Why have you already decided where something has to exist for it to be "real"?

 

I think you're silly.

If you can say god exists because he exists in a persons mind, then I can say god doesn't exist, because he doesn't exist in my mind.

A kid can have an imaginary friend, and the friend will be real to that kid, but that doesn't make it real to anyone else.

Your whole argument is silly. That one word sums up every one of your posts on this thread.
That's all I have to say about it.

 

"If you can say god exists because he exists in a persons mind, then I can say god doesn't exist, because he doesn't exist in my mind."

It only has to exist in one mind to exist at all. For it not to exist at all, it has to not exist in every mind.

"A kid can have an imaginary friend, and the friend will be real to that kid, but that doesn't make it real to anyone else."

Believe it or not, you just agreed with me. If the friend is real to the kid because he believed it is real, then a similar logic can be expounded in the negative. Making use of your very own logic, if someone imagines that an event is true, then the event is real for them. This means that for them all events which are mutually exclusive with the event the person percieves to be true "will be not real" (which is equivalent to "will not be real"). So supposing that the mutually exclusive event was the "accepted" one, the "accepted" event is not true for everyone by your own logic. This means that the "accepted" event cannot be the ultimate reality by virtue of someone imagining something else to be true. The logic is yours, my dear.

 

Translation: You're an absolute idealist, and therefore nothing I can say will ever make any sense to you. The earth is not flat just because some raving Bible-literalist still exist, and nor does god exist just because you can think about a concept like "god." We all have models with which to perceive reality (how else could we exist, after all), but to believe those models take precedent over reality is, to me, a combination of garbage logic and wishful-thinking.

By the way, are you conceding the point that god only "exists" in people's mind, or is this just hypothetical? (This is a real question.)

 

I have always had trouble understanding how people can say god doesn't exist.

Many clever people say many clever things too keep this whole thing 'alive' i think that 'god' is not real for the same reason a huge great big pyramid is not going to take me to the afterlife.

Lots of clever stuff

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/Mansproof.html
http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/oolon1.htm
http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

Ok so i can't prove god does not exist...but i am prety sure the second coming will NEVER happen. And if god shows up after i am gone then shit i missed a great day..

 

I always thought that orgasms were a myth until I had one.

 

Vae,
"Translation: You're an absolute idealist, and therefore nothing I can say will ever make any sense to you."

Good; I was hoping we would get to this point quickly. Now we can remove the scaffoldings and get to the building.

Everything you said makes sense to me, and I used to once upon a time say the same things. Anyone with intuitive common sense would immediately understand your point. The problem here is logic. If someone imagines something, then it exists in their mind; therefore it exists. Notice that when we say something exists we are not specifying where it exists. So we can clearly see that the something does exist, going purely by logic. Of course in this case it is completely irrational to use such logic for any practical purpose. We choose to trust our intuitive common sense over the strange logic. Perfectly reasonable, but why? Should we continue down this line?

"By the way, are you conceding the point that god only "exists" in people's mind, or is this just hypothetical? (This is a real question.)"

As I have not expressed my opinion in this matter, I can't see how I could possibly be making a concession? By the very nature of your question, it is obvious that you differentiate between your logical and your intuitive realities. This is because it is natural to perceive that the reality we seem to live in directly, is the absolute reality. When you are at least intellectually willing to "concede" that the reality we live in is not the absolute reality then you have to consider which way to take. Here is where the point I am illustrating in this thread comes in. As you progress down the road, it seems like you can either have god as an absolute reality or come to the alternate view. Mine is the alternate view; one which is not worth expounding at this point as it would be meaningless. The alternate view is extremely pragmatic and with the right actions (actions which you will understand when its time) to follow it up you will be an extremely happy person.

As you seem to be very intelligent I am sure that if you are willing to trust your natural self over other people's techniques and ideas, then you will quickly progress down the road.

(btw I too was a Marxist and rationalist atheist once upon a time...)

 

To be blunt, I no longer can find a reason to respond to your abstractions about possibilites. Also, if you're not a Marxist now, but were before, what are you? Frankly, I find this statement very hard to believe... No one can understand the reason poverty exists, and then simply not understand it anymore. So please, elaborate.

I've heard before that superstring theory is crossing that fine line between pseudo-science and science, but even if it is true--if we have 11 dimensions--we are living in 11 dimensions right now--that's what the theory says anyway. The other dimensions wouldn't be tucked away in some weird "side" of the universe, they would be folded upon each other.

 

"To be blunt, I no longer can find a reason to respond to your abstractions about possibilites."

Perhaps at this time, that is the best course of action. However, always remember that by blocking possibilities at first glance, you often miss them.

"Frankly, I find this statement very hard to believe... No one can understand the reason poverty exists, and then simply not understand it anymore. So please, elaborate."

I was a Marxist even before you were born. A lot more can change in time than you think. It is completely normal to think you will have the same view forever; that unlike many others you truly understand something and that will ensure that you will not change your mind. It also going to be completely normal to see that repeatedly, this will not be the case.

 

(emphases mine)

Most of what you said just expanded on the few statements I made--except where I italicized. I can honestly say I've never even heard the term "higher dimensions" used when speaking of string theories, but I'm certainly no expert. Could you provide a link?

And you as well. Have a good day.

lol

Yes, I would agree that no mind remains stagnant. If you used to be a Marxist, you already know I practice the mindset of materialistic dialectics, so what you said seemed a tad superfluous. But you didn't answer my question. I asked what you are now. Is their some term that best suits you; do you identify with any group in particular?

 

Edited because I'm wrong, apparently.

 

Butterfly,
Try reading the posts and not just the titles...

"Is their some term that best suits you; do you identify with any group in particular?"

No, I believe in pragmatism. Different systems suit different places and different policies suit different places.

" If you used to be a Marxist, you already know I practice the mindset of materialistic dialectics, so what you said seemed a tad superfluous."

Yes, at this point in time that is very likely to be the case.

"And you as well."

My dear, it was not I who dismissed something because I did not wish to understand it. You do not wish to really try to understand my idea because of the "abstractions" involved and therefore you do not argue it. I am arguing your ideas with these abstractions. I'm not the dead end, now am I?

 

Midnight

Please elucidate

Occam

 

It does not seem to be possible to provide definite 'proof' of God's existence or inexistence. All the so called proofs that exist seem to me to be meerly constructions of the human mental faculties.

How can God not exist? in the same way that other human mental constructions don't exist, for example, fictional characters, the phlogeston theory of conbustion and so on.

However, I hasten to add that this does not imply that I don't think there is a God. I don't think though that any logical proof can be advanced that cannot as quickly be demolished.

Perhaps the faculty in us that can know God is not anything really to do with the discursive intellect, but a kind of intuition which surpasses and transcends the slow and stumbling intellect.